SINGH v. SINGH (2025)

¶1. Rajwinder Singh was awarded a $50,900 judgment against Balbir Singh and secured a writ of garnishment against Balbir to ensure payment of the judgment. Balbir's bank notified Rajwinder that Balbir had a joint savings account with adequate funds to cover the judgment. Balbir filed a motion to stay the garnishment, claiming that the funds in the account belonged not to him but to his sons, the joint account holders. Following a hearing, the Hinds County County Court held that Balbir had met his burden of proving the account's funds were not his and granted his motion to stay the garnishment. Rajwinder appealed to the Hinds County Circuit Court, which reversed and rendered judgment in Rajwinder's favor. Balbir now appeals from the circuit court's order. Finding that the county court's ruling was not supported by the evidence, we affirm the circuit court's reversal of the county court's order and the circuit court's rendering judgment in favor of Rajwinder.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Rajwinder Singh filed a complaint against Balbir Singh in the County Court of Hinds County alleging that Balbir owed over $50,900 following a $68,900 loan that had been made in 2015. Rajwinder requested the remaining $50,900 and post-judgment interest at 8%. Balbir answered and denied the debt in toto. However, after this answer, Balbir essentially stopped contesting the debt, and in October 2020, Rajwinder was granted a judgment against Balbir in the amount of $50,900, plus post-judgment interest at 8% annually.

¶3. Rajwinder sought a writ of garnishment against Balbir “on any and all checking/savings accounts, certificates of deposit, signatory accounts or other assets” in Balbir's name. The writ of garnishment was served on Bank Plus in December 2020. Bank Plus answered the garnishment and certified that it had possession or control over at least $51,275.33 of Balbir's money and would hold it “subject to order of the Court.” On December 10, 2020, the county court ordered Bank Plus to release the funds to Rajwinder's attorney. But before Bank Plus could take action, Balbir filed a motion to hold the transfer of the funds in abeyance. In his motion, Balbir stated that the account being garnished was actually the “operating account for the Fuel Time Convenience Store in Brandon, Mississippi, which is operated by [Harminder] Singh, the son of Balbir.” Balbir argued that the money in the account should be subject to garnishment “only to the extent that they have been deposited as” his personal funds. The county court granted Balbir's motion to hold the garnishment in abeyance and ordered that Balbir's sons Harminder and Harman enter appearances as defendants in the matter.

¶4. At a later hearing, Harminder testified that he and his brother Harman owned and operated the company H&H Shell and that he was the sole owner of the company Quick Fill. Harminder testified that Balbir had retired and no longer had a role in the operation of the two companies. Harminder claimed that he was “solely” responsible for all deposits and withdrawals on account 3516 and that all money coming into the account came from H&H Shell or Quick Fill.

¶5. Balbir testified that he retired from working in either 2019 or 2020 and that for the last four years before the hearing, his sons had been running H&H Shell. Balbir said that he added his sons to account 3516 on November 22, 2019. Balbir testified that he deposited money from his line of credit into account 3516 to give Harminder money for various expenses. Balbir explained that Harminder would always pay him back, and those checks would be deposited into account 3516. Balbir also explained that Harminder paid him monthly into his checking account to pay bills since Balbir no longer had an income. Despite this, Balbir was adamant that the money in account 3516 was not his money.

¶6. The court ruled from the bench that there were “deposits made and withdrawals made from ․ account 3516” but that it “cannot be determined” how much, if any, of the money was Balbir's. The court found “that it [was] inconclusive how much Mr. Balbir Singh may own as a part of the deposits that were made” and granted Balbir's motion. After the hearing, the county court entered a written order granting Balbir's motion to stay the garnishment from account 3516. The order noted that Balbir had “sustained his burden of showing that the funds deposited in said account are not funds earned or deposited by him, and are therefore not subject to garnishment.”

¶7. Rajwinder appealed to the circuit court. After briefing by the parties, the circuit court reversed the county court and rendered judgment in Rajwinder's favor. The circuit court held that Balbir bore the burden of proof to show that the funds in the account were not his and should not be subjected to garnishment. The circuit court held that a joint account is subject to garnishment and that each joint owner must show what portion of the funds he actually owned. But the circuit court found that the evidence of ownership here “was at best inconclusive.” The circuit court noted that the county court ruled from the bench that the evidence was inconclusive, and the circuit court held that “[i]nconclusive means the party with the burden of proof”—Balbir and his sons—loses. The circuit court agreed with the county court “that there are too many unresolved issues of fact.” Balbir appealed.

ANALYSIS

¶8. Balbir argues that the circuit court erred in reversing the county court's ruling that granted his motion to stay the garnishment. He argues that the county court's original ruling was “consistent with the evidence and testimony” and that the circuit court manifestly erred by reversing.

¶9. At the outset, it is important to note the procedural posture of this appeal. “As a practical matter, the present appeal is primarily from the ruling of the county court rather than from the circuit court, which had the role of an intermediate appellate court in the present case. Therefore, any alleged errors in the circuit court's legal analysis should not, in any way, impact this Court's analysis of whether or not the county court erred in the present case.” W-T Holdings LLC v. Gilchrist, 299 So. 3d 808, 814 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Old Canton Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Mayor & City Council of City of Jackson, 749 So. 2d 54, 62 (¶21) (Miss. 1999)). Put simply, we review the county court's decision without deference to the circuit court's analysis. Id.

¶10. Since this case was tried without a jury, we “must affirm the judgment unless the trial court was manifestly wrong.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss. v. Brown & Brown of Miss. LLC, 333 So. 3d 619, 622 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (citing Int'l Harvester Co. v. Peoples Bank & Tr. Co. 402 So. 2d 856, 860 (Miss. 1981)). We will reverse the trial court's findings only if they are not supported by “substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence.” See Miss. Dep't of Rehab. Servs. v. Butler, 384 So. 3d 546, 553 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).

¶11. Mississippi Code Annotated sections 81-5-63 and 81-12-137 (Rev. 2015) provide that joint deposits into a checking or savings account create a presumption of joint tenancy ownership with the right of survivorship over the funds in the account. Id. The Supreme Court has held that jointly owned funds are subject to garnishment. See Cupit v. Brooks, 237 Miss. 61, 64-65, 112 So. 2d 813, 814-15 (1959). However, in Delta Fertilizer Inc. v. Weaver, 547 So. 2d 800 (Miss. 1989), the Supreme Court held that if a writ of garnishment is placed on a joint account and one or more of the joint owners are not the judgment debtor, the other owners “may establish actual ownership of the funds and defeat the writ of garnishment.” Id. at 801.

¶12. In Delta Fertilizer, the fertilizer company secured a judgment against a debtor, Jack Weaver, and had writs of garnishment issued on various accounts in Weaver's and his mother Eleanor's names. Id. Eleanor intervened and argued that she was the sole owner of the accounts. Id. At a hearing, Eleanor and Jack both testified that the money belonged solely to Eleanor and that Jack was on the accounts “for convenience” because she could no longer see well enough to do her own banking. Id. However, “[t]here was no documentation as to the source of the funds deposited in these accounts.” Id. The trial judge found that Eleanor had met her burden of proof to clearly establish that the money in the garnished accounts belonged to her, not Jack, and the judge dismissed the writs of garnishment. Id.

¶13. The fertilizer company appealed, and on review, the Supreme Court adopted a rule used by the Arkansas Supreme Court, holding: “It is our view that under the facts in this case the court should have held all of the joint bank account was prima facie subject to garnishment, and that the burden was on each joint depositor to show what portion of the funds he or she actually owned. We believe this is the fair and reasonable rule because the depositors are in a much better position than the judgment creditor to know the pertinent facts.” Id. at 803 (quoting Hayden v. Gardner, 238 Ark. 351, 381 S.W.2d 752, 754 (1964)).

¶14. The holding of Delta Fertilizer clearly establishes that funds in joint accounts are prima facie subject to garnishment, but that presumption may be overcome, with the burden of proof being placed on the depositor challenging the garnishment. In the present case, that burden was on Balbir and Harminder. The county court found that the true ownership of the funds in account 3516 “is a question that cannot be determined” and that it was “inconclusive how much [Balbir] may own.” The court then granted Balbir's motion to stay the writ of garnishment despite finding that it was unclear whose funds were in account 3516.

¶15. The county court later entered a written order, which Balbir's counsel had prepared, that correctly framed the burden of proof and found that Balbir had proved that the funds in account 3516 were “not funds earned or deposited by him.” The county court found that the funds were not subject to garnishment and granted Balbir's motion to stay the garnishment.

¶16. Looking at the evidence and testimony from Harminder and Balbir, we conclude that the county court erred by finding that Harminder and Balbir met the burden of proof to show that the funds in the garnished account did not belong to Balbir. There is simply not substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence to establish that the funds in the account were Harminder's alone.

¶17. Evidence showed that Balbir opened the savings account in 2018. At the end of June 30, 2019, there was $127,938.72 in the account, but there was no testimony about the source of these funds. Balbir deposited $215,000 into the account in August 2019 from his personal line of credit. His sons were not added to the account until November 22, 2019, after the garnishment proceedings had begun. Although there was no testimony about the source of the funds, if Balbir's sons were not on the account before November 2019, it stands to reason that Balbir was depositing the funds.

¶18. Harminder and Balbir testified that all deposits made in 2020 were made by Harminder either from his checking account or from the convenience stores’ accounts. But the bank records showed at least one transfer from the account to Balbir, who testified that he received money from the account and from Harminder as payment to cover various living expenses. Balbir also testified that he used the money from his line of credit, which had been deposited into the account, to give his children money for whatever they needed. He explained that some of the payments to himself were simply repayments of loans he had made to his children from his line of credit.

¶19. The county court's finding that none of the money in the account belonged to Balbir was manifestly wrong, and Balbir carried the burden to prove that the money was not his. Although Harminder testified that he made each deposit into the account in 2020 on behalf of the various companies the family owned, there was evidence that money came out of the account and was given to Balbir. There was also proof that Balbir had started the account and that the account had money in it before his sons were added. This included the large deposit made into the account for the line of credit, and Balbir testified that he used the line of credit to help his sons as needed. The county court erred by finding that Balbir had met his burden of proof and by granting Balbir's motion to stay the garnishment. We therefore affirm the circuit court's judgment reversing and rendering the county court's order.

¶20. AFFIRMED.

ST. PÉ, J., FOR THE COURT:

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND WEDDLE, JJ., CONCUR. WESTBROOKS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.